Are religion and Sharia separate?

The issue included in our article as a question title has actually been debated for centuries, not just today: Are religion and Sharia separate?

Sharia is generally expressed—by those who accept it—as Islamic laws and provisions. I said "by those who accept it" because, just as there are those who do not accept Sharia in this aspect, we know that throughout history there have been different Sharias, and different Sharias have been accepted according to sects, schools of thought, and even traditions. Therefore, we can say that it is difficult to find a Sharia that everyone can agree on in general.

One of the most contentious areas for the followers of a religion is undoubtedly the way that religion is understood and interpreted. Who understands what from religion and how they pass on the religion they understand to future generations is an important event. Because we also know that all religions have undergone different interpretations and acceptances over time, and religious texts have been reconstructed according to the reader. In this respect, religion also changes and is reshaped according to time and culture. Even if religion does not change, life forces it to change. Now, who can say that the religion Yunus Emre believed in and the religion ISIS believes in are the same? In this case, let alone Sharia, we are talking about religions, not just religion.

As I said, even if religion does not change, what life brings, social dynamics, and the transforming spirit of the time invite religion to change as well. This is an invitation made in principle; otherwise, resisting time is not a very easy situation.

Recently, Nurettin Yıldız, speaking at Boğaziçi University, stated in a statement that according to Islamic tradition and sects, children could also be married, and expressed that there was no age limit for this. In another speech, the same person approved of women being subjected to violence, and even stated that women should be grateful for being subjected to violence. As such, the mentioned person was protested within the university. The rest is known... Meanwhile, in another speech, the same person expressed his objection to this situation by saying, "which mother/father can marry their six- or seven-year-old child to someone who is thirty or forty years old," and said that this situation would not be compatible with compassion and mercy. However, for hundreds of years, it was said that children of the age we are talking about could be married/betrothed. Was there no compassion/mercy then? Perhaps there was, but this was also accepted/imposed "in the name of religion." There are certainly different reasons for this. But today, it is almost impossible to defend child marriages at the mentioned ages even in the name of religion. This is the power of changing times, conditions, and life that transforms religious tradition. When life speaks, "religion" falls silent. At least most of the time, this is the reality experienced.

Let alone centuries ago, even in the early twentieth century in the Ottoman Empire, girls were married off at 9 and boys at 12. Moreover, these ages were determined as a limit in the 1917 decree, and in this respect, the decree in question was accepted as a progressive law. Now, even talking about these is a crime! Then we can say that life is updating religion.

Again, in the provisions accepted as Sharia, for example, in matters such as inheritance and testimony, women faced provisions that were disadvantageous compared to men. The distance a woman could travel alone was determined; there were item-by-item provisions for slavery and concubinage; laws that tied almost their entire lives to their masters were accepted by Sharia provisions. Now, which of these is it possible to defend with courage and carry into life!? It just doesn't work; religion passes through the interpretation and approval of not only people but also time, the changing social structure, and the new conditions reached. Religion no longer lives only within tribes, in a secluded corner of history: it opens up to time and appears before all of humanity. In this case, you find yourself having to defend the laws you advocated in a narrow culture against all of humanity. Naturally, this is not easy. The issue is not just defending; the power balances and power relations of groups within society, for example, women, young people, and laborers, are changing. The groups you caught defenseless yesterday appear before you strongly today. Then those wrists cannot be bent; the victorious wrists declare their own "Sharia."

Despite all this, we see that the Islamic world in general has not evolved into an ideally libertarian, egalitarian social structure. The cold, rigid world of provisions of yesterday, which cast a shadow over justice and worked in favor of men, perhaps does not receive as much acceptance today, but the dominant mentality of yesterday still holds power politically and culturally. For this reason, unfortunately, the Islamic world cannot stand out as exemplary countries for humanity in a global sense. On the contrary, the Muslim world in general is trying to exist within a network of capitalist relations, far from basic human rights, and as a part of the global imperialist system. It is, of course, impossible to be an exemplary country and community on this ground of existence. We also know this from the commercial relations that continue while tens of thousands of people are being massacred in Gaza, the arms trade that is carried out, and the allied ties recorded as "strategic partners."

While time changes, when tyrants only change their names, the transformation also favors oppression. Sharias may change, but neither the burden nor the direction of history changes.